Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13

[SmooTh]

China said to reject simplified filing request for Microsoft's planned Activision deal

China's antitrust regulator is said to have rejected Microsoft's (MSFT) request to have its planned $69 billion purchase of Activision (ATVI) reviewed under a "simplified"...

seekingalpha.com

China's antitrust regulator is said to have rejected Microsoft's request to have its planned $69 billion purchase of Activision reviewed under a "simplified" filing.

China's State Administration for Market Regulation, or SAMR, is said to have rejected the request, according to traders, who cited two separate reports that were circulating on Friday.

 

[BRiT]

China is merely moving onto a normal acquisition proceedings:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1593719607315124224

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Everyone waiting for someone else to turn their report in so they can copy the answers...

I know you said this jokingly but, because there is fundamental lack of understanding about these processes, the reason why the reports will vary is because each regulator is looking at the impact in their local market, with key determining factors being which entities have a presence in which territories.

For example there was incredulation earlier in the thread that the CMA had approved Sony's acquisition of Bungie whenas in fact the only regulator required to approve the acquisition was the US FTC because Bungie have no presence outside of Norther America. The UK has quite a healthy games industry presence and Activision have a massive presence in the UK with both development studios in the UK and the HQ of all EMEA operations run from London. The impact of the acquisitions may impact UK firms competing with Microsoft and Activision-Blizzard in ways that do not impact the EU and US, and vice-versa.

I would expect the final reports to reflect these differences.

Alternatively not enough companies offering compelling arguments against the acquisition and the EU Commission is hoping more companies will offer something that they can use to rule against the acquisition.

The time in which to raise concerns and provide evidence is fixed. Rather than guessing what's happening here, you can just check the applicable regulation. The Commission advise that the deadline has been extended in accordance with article 10(3)2 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. Article 10(3) sub para 2 reads:

The periods set by the first subparagraph [the initial deadline] shall likewise be extended if the notifying parties make a request to that effect not later than 15 working days after the initiation of proceedings pursuant to Article 6(1)(c). The notifying parties may make only one such request. Likewise, at any time following the initiation of proceedings, the periods set by the first sub-paragraph may be extended by the Commission with the agreement of the notifying parties. The total duration of any exten- sion or extensions effected pursuant to this subparagraph shall not exceed 20 working days.

What this means in plain English is that once the EU have notified their intent to go to Stage 2, the notifying parties (Microsoft and Activision-Blizzard) have fifteen days in which to seek an extension on the decision

It was Microsoft and Activision-Blizzard that sought the extension. So can we please not further feed this bullshit narrative of an international conspiracy by various regulators against Microsoft, whereby Governments will break their own processes to punish Microsoft for imagined transgressions. FFS.

 

[Nesh]

Alternatively not enough companies offering compelling arguments against the acquisition and the EU Commission is hoping more companies will offer something that they can use to rule against the acquisition.

If they already had enough evidence that supports ruling against it, it's very unlikely that the date would have been extended.

Regards,
SB

Why would they be hoping

 

[iroboto]

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Good video. These are terrible comms from an individual who is not in any way involved in process for assessing the merger.

Nonetheless, for folks who are easily led, this situation establishes a foundation on which to establish disbelief for acutal facts. You would think after the #DealWithIt tweet from Adam Orth (regarding always Xbox online) when he worked for Microsoft, that larger organisations would be more media savvy and provide training.

Like fighting velociraptors, critical thinking feels like a long-lost skill for most engaging online.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Good video. These are terrible comms from an individual who is not in any way involved in process for assessing the merger.

The problem with his tweet isn't that he is or isn't part of the process, it's that he potentially has knowledge pertaining to what the commission is doing and what its intentions are.

Unfortunately, whether he does or does not is immaterial at this point as his original tweet implied that he had knowledge of the commission's intentions, and that has more weight since he works for the EU (and posting from an account as a verified representative of the EU), albeit not in that specific division. Again, as multiple lawyers have stated, whether he does or does not is immaterial to the perception that he does. Although it should be noted that as another lawyer that specializes in EU law mentions, it is common for the DG COMP to consult with other relevant DGs on cases such as this to get input on any potential impact on the industry. Basically, it's likely that he does in fact know information from the actual commission handling this case as to where they are in the process and what they are discussing. As well DG GROW (relevant to the person who made the tweet) has closer ties to DG COMP than other DGs and was more than likely invited to multiple hearings on the merger by DG COMP. It gets even better as he was formerly the spokesperson for DG COMP, IE - he likely still has personal ties within DG COMP.

It makes it significantly more difficult for the commission to claim that any judgement against MS was impartial when the evidence provided thus far to rule against MS is a bit of a stretch (they aren't the largest competitor in virtually any competitive market except for Personal Computing OS which is irrelevant to this as that's not the dominant OS that consumers use).

Again, this isn't proof that DG COMP have or had a premeditated agenda, but it makes it much more difficult for them to prove that they didn't if they rule against MS and MS bring a suit contending that the ruling was premeditated.

Regards,
SB

 

[Deleted member 11852]

The problem with his tweet isn't that he is or isn't part of the process, it's that he potentially has knowledge pertaining to what the commission is doing and what its intentions are. .. .. .. .. Again, this isn't proof that DG COMP have or had a premeditated agenda, but it makes it much more difficult for them to prove that they didn't if they rule against MS and MS bring a suit contending that the ruling was premeditated.

Nothing the CMA, EU or FTC say or do will convince some people that this isn't part of a grand conspiracy against Microsoft. We know what the commission's intensions are, they will be thing evidence from Microsoft's competitors. The final decisions have to be based on that evidence, and if there is any misrepresentation of evidence in the findings, the witnesses will know this - and there are a lot of large companies involved here.

I have yet to see a cogent argument for why a bunch of civil servants in several territory's regulatory processes would be engaged in an international conspiracy against Microsoft. What's in it for them? Why did these same processes approve the Zenimax acquisition? Or in the CMA's case, Microsoft's acquisition of Nuance Communications earlier this year? All I'm seeing here is MisterX-level analysis and speculation.

 

[Nisaaru]

Nothing the CMA, EU or FTC say or do will convince some people that this isn't part of a grand conspiracy against Microsoft. We know what the commission's intensions are, they will be thing evidence from Microsoft's competitors. The final decisions have to be based on that evidence, and if there is any misrepresentation of evidence in the findings, the witnesses will know this - and there are a lot of large companies involved here.

I have yet to see a cogent argument for why a bunch of civil servants in several territory's regulatory processes would be engaged in an international conspiracy against Microsoft. What's in it for them? Why did these same processes approve the Zenimax acquisition? Or in the CMA's case, Microsoft's acquisition of Nuance Communications earlier this year? All I'm seeing here is MisterX-level analysis and speculation.

I think the whole thing is BS and not because of a conspiracy against MS itself but either for political reasons between others and the US or as an opportunity for grand standing of the underemployed bureaucracy.

I can't take any so called monopole concerns about MS and freaking games serious at all. There are actual real power monopoles out there with serious impacts on people's lives, economy and the political independence of nations with Google/Youtube, Amazon and FB. Just the way Apple controls hw and sw markets is a hotspot on its own and which makes any so called green ideology a farce with its non-repair and obsolescence policies.

Just the idea that an UK studio now owned by MS competes with another UK studio most likely owned by Sony or somebody else is ridiculous to me. That other UK studio would be culled by their parent if their games suck or their parent company decides to shrink. What that would have to do with the MS owned UK studio for instance completely escapes me as most of these corporate studios don't compete with others directly in any form. It gets even more absurd when I read that Brasil was involved too

 

[JPT]

I think the whole thing is BS and not because of a conspiracy against MS itself but either for political reasons between others and the US or as an opportunity for grand standing of the underemployed bureaucracy.

I can't take any so called monopole concerns about MS and freaking games serious at all.

.... completely escapes me as most of these corporate studios don't compete with others directly in any form. It gets even more absurd when I read that Brasil was involved too

So what I read here is, your opinion, but then I wonder how does your opinion influence or shape the rules of sovereign nations like Brazil or a union of countries like the EU. There are rules/regulations these people follow and they are applied again and again. And they might be biased as hell, but it's their laws, if you want to play in their sandbox, you follow their rules. Sometime they mess up and make wrong decisions other times they make correct decisions, but your opinion how what things looks like is quite irrelevant. Just as my opinion on US elections and thus its results.
I get the for dummies version in the news and am I not an expert in the field. Which I assume, maybe incorrectly, that you are not an expert in this matter.

The problem with his tweet isn't that he is or isn't part of the process, it's that he potentially has knowledge pertaining to what the commission is doing and what its intentions are.

It gets even better as he was formerly the spokesperson for DG COMP, IE - he likely still has personal ties within DG COMP.

It makes it significantly more difficult for the commission to claim that any judgement against MS was impartial when the evidence provided thus far to rule against MS is a bit of a stretch (they aren't the largest competitor in virtually any competitive market except for Personal Computing OS which is irrelevant to this as that's not the dominant OS that consumers use).

Again, this isn't proof that DG COMP have or had a premeditated agenda, but it makes it much more difficult for them to prove that they didn't if they rule against MS and MS bring a suit contending that the ruling was premeditated.

I am sorry but these are your opinions, nothing is set in stone until everybody is done suing each other. Perception and whom knows who and worked with before is pretty irrelevant unless you can prove any sort of collusion.
If people attend meetings, they will be registered as attending the meeting, it's not water cooler talk. For all its deficiencies, lack of bureaucracy and paperwork is not one the EU nor UK is known for.

Historically, I assume that, these investigations leads to approvals and denials. How the players try to form the opinions in the press and thereby us, is a totally different thing.

 

[Nesh]

I think the whole thing is BS and not because of a conspiracy against MS itself but either for political reasons between others and the US or as an opportunity for grand standing of the underemployed bureaucracy.

I can't take any so called monopole concerns about MS and freaking games serious at all. There are actual real power monopoles out there with serious impacts on people's lives, economy and the political independence of nations with Google/Youtube, Amazon and FB. Just the way Apple controls hw and sw markets is a hotspot on its own and which makes any so called green ideology a farce with its non-repair and obsolescence policies.

Just the idea that an UK studio now owned by MS competes with another UK studio most likely owned by Sony or somebody else is ridiculous to me. That other UK studio would be culled by their parent if their games suck or their parent company decides to shrink. What that would have to do with the MS owned UK studio for instance completely escapes me as most of these corporate studios don't compete with others directly in any form. It gets even more absurd when I read that Brasil was involved too

What political reasons? if you want to use the political card then someone can also ssume that the US also approved the acquisition for political reasons against the economies of other countries. Lets not get there

We also know that the EU and the UK didnt habe any "political" concerns when thry approved the other acquisitions

 

[chris1515]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/technology/microsoft-activision-deal.html?

NYT article

 

[BRiT]

From the NYT Article:

Microsoft said that on Nov. 11 it offered Sony a 10-year deal to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation. Sony declined to comment on the offer.

 

[Nesh]

From the NYT Article:

When you make such a deal you are immediately signaling that you are planning to make these franchises full exclusive

 

[BRiT]

When you make such a deal you are immediately signaling that you are planning to make these franchises full exclusive

Microsoft can't win with that logic.

They don't offer a contract and Jim Ryan cries they're going exclusive when current contract expires.
They offer another 3 year contract and Jim Ryan cries they're going exclusive when that contract expires.
They offer a 10 year contract which is unheard of in the games industry and Jim Ryan cries they're going exclusive when that contract expires.

 

[troyan]

Why should Sony pay for something? Microsoft can support the Playstation just like every other third party publisher.

 

[BRiT]

Why should Sony pay for something? Microsoft can support the Playstation just like every other third party publisher.

Who said there was any payment involved???

 

[Nisaaru]

What political reasons? if you want to use the political card then someone can also ssume that the US also approved the acquisition for political reasons against the economies of other countries. Lets not get there

I don't consider it unlikely that MS buying Activision is also meant to secure property in the current economical and political situation. Assuming that's no factor these days would be a "bit" naive. Don't worry I won't go further.

 

[Remij]

When you make such a deal you are immediately signaling that you are planning to make these franchises full exclusive

 

[mr magoo]

Yeah this reminds me of “life of Brian” by monthy python.
“Listen guys I am not messiah!!!
Oh my god he IS messiah!!!!”